Cargando…

Lists of monosyllables for logoaudiometric tests: elaboration, content validation and search for equivalence

PURPOSE: Develop new lists of monosyllables for conducting logoaudiometric tests in Portuguese, perform content validation, considering ear side and education and check the equivalence between the lists. METHODS: Were selected 125 monosyllables with different syllabic structures, which were submitte...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vaucher, Ana Valéria de Almeida, Costa, Lidiéli Dalla, de Moraes, Anaelena Bragança, Menegotto, Isabela Hoffmeister, Costa, Maristela Julio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9851190/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35019086
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20212021057
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: Develop new lists of monosyllables for conducting logoaudiometric tests in Portuguese, perform content validation, considering ear side and education and check the equivalence between the lists. METHODS: Were selected 125 monosyllables with different syllabic structures, which were submitted to the content validation process, which included judgment on familiarity, organization of lists, recording of material and auditory recognition. After content validation, the monosyllable lists were subjected to equivalence research, in order to obtain evidence of reliability for the proposed test instrument. RESULTS: Five lists with 25 monosyllables were elaborated and analyzed for content, of these, four lists were validated. There was no statistically significant difference between the responses obtained in the right and left ears. The education of the subjects did not influence the recognition of words. As for the equivalence search, it was found that two lists were equivalent, one not equivalent, but similar and one list was different from the others, and then excluded. CONCLUSION: Two monosyllable lists were validated for content and considered equivalent, with the same level of difficulty between them, and one list was considered similar, which can be used as training to apply the test on the audiological battery. The validated lists were not influenced by ear and education.